ArticleIranian journal of pathology2026
Endogenous Biomarkers Analysis and False-Negative Results for SARSCov2 Using two Commercial RT-PCR Diagnostic Kits.
Article in Iranian journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: Real-time PCR is widely used to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, but false-negative results can occur even with internal controls. This study aimed to investigate the impact of using alternative internal control materials on the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 detection kits. Methods: Between December 2021 and January 2022, 162 respiratory tract samples were collected from patients with suspected COVID-19 at Ghaem Hospital in Mashhad, IR Iran. Samples were initially tested with the Pishtaz Teb kit, which uses DNA internal control, and then negative samples were retested with the Geneova kit, which uses a RNA internal control. Positive and negative controls were consistently used to validate the results. Results: After retesting with the Geneova kit, only one patient out of 162 negative samples was positive for SARS-CoV-2. The Pishtaz Teb and Geneova controls consistently produced the expected results, but the Geneova internal control matched the Pishtaz Teb control in only 44% of cases. The higher threshold cycle value for Geneova internal control suggested RNA degradation during the experimental period. Conclusion: Proper quality control measures are crucial for accurate SARS-CoV-2 detection. The study highlights the importance of selecting reliable diagnostic kits with high sensitivity and specificity to reduce false-negative results, particularly in cases with a low viral load or early stages of the disease. The internal RNA control can detect RNA degradation and help identify false-negative diagnoses, leading to better disease control and management. Further research is needed to improve the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnostic tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.